Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

Matthew Young35 said:Let me be clear: Amnesty International didn't draft or sign the Geneva Convention.
Their role is simply to document what’s actually happening on the ground.
If their report is fraudulent, then by all means, attack them. But if the findings are accurate? Then the criticism is misplaced.
It really is that simple.

Even so, nothing changes the core reality: Russia is the aggressor here. They are committing crimes, and there is no excuse for their actions, regardless of whatever one might think about that report.

The whole report is pointless—that's the bottom line.
Basically, they claim there wasn't artillery at the theater in Mariupol, yet more rockets still hit it.
No artillery near the hospitals? Well, the hospitals got leveled anyway.
The Ukrainian military was in some houses? So those houses got blown up too.
Whether the military was there or not, the homes and civilian
sites are gone.

Nathan Thomas12 said:The whole report is pointless—that's the bottom line.
Basically, they claim there wasn't artillery at the theater in Mariupol, yet more rockets still hit it.
No artillery near the hospitals? Well, the hospitals got leveled anyway.
The Ukrainian military was in some houses? So those houses got blown up too.
Whether the military was there or not, the homes and civilian
sites are gone.

And they reported on that as well.

Matthew Young35 said:Let me be clear: Amnesty International didn't draft or sign the Geneva Convention.
Their role is simply to document what’s actually happening on the ground.
If their report is fraudulent, then by all means, attack them. But if the findings are accurate? Then the criticism is misplaced.
It really is that simple.

Even so, nothing changes the core reality: Russia is the aggressor here. They are committing crimes, and there is no excuse for their actions, regardless of whatever one might think about that report.

The thing is, other journalists who were out there in UA are saying that Amnesty basically showed up with a pre-set agenda of "well, actually, Ukraine is just as bad," and they specifically hunted for those interviews that would back up the viewpoint they arrived with. Plus, Donatella Rivier is pretty well known for her anti-West stances—so why send someone like that to write these reports in the first place?

https://twitter.com/NeilPHauer/statu...03014598598658


Donatella stayed in the same hotel as us for several days in Kramatorsk in May. It was quite clear from conversations that she had an agenda already - to be contrarian and 'well akshually Ukraine is just as bad' before she even began her fieldwork there.

https://twitter.com/JimmySecUK/statu...48639528386560

It’s pretty clear to me that Amnesty International’s
@DRovera
is either horribly misinformed or deliberately lying about Western aid.

View on twitter

An Italian guy who was over in Mykolaiv got contacted by Amnesty, and once his response didn't fit their specific narrative, they just stopped getting back to him.

https://twitter.com/UmlandAndreas/st...60146326822912

https://twitter.com/hergravce/status...30224311226368

Then, when she was asked exactly which neighborhoods and areas she had actually visited,

https://twitter.com/AnnaPolkharkiv/s...80310832177152

she just completely ignored it.

View on twitter

This is a tweet from an earlier phase of the war, showing how she views everything as being "neutral."

Of course, they just dumped all these accusations without any solid proof, relying entirely on that "trust me bro WE ara Amnesty" logic. And then, when people started poking holes in the report, they actually acted offended and started calling critics "trolls." So, basically, they're allowed to criticize everyone else, but if anyone critiques them, suddenly everyone else is just a bunch of trolls?

https://twitter.com/AgnesCallamard/s...34095982149632

Matthew Young35 said:It isn't selective truth, though.
For instance, there were consistent reports that the Russian military used the nuclear power plant as a shield and stationed troops there.
There were also consistent reports regarding the killing of civilians.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/petition/...ns-in-ukraine/

" the war rages on following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, we have documented a pattern of crimes committed by Russian forces, including unlawful attacks, wilful killings of civilians, torture, and extrajudicial executions. "

The issue here is simply that the truth bothers you.

If a war is underway and you station troops in a school, can you really be surprised when the attacker strikes that military presence within the school?
And yet, your grievance isn't with the tactical decision; it's with the people who reported that Ukrainians placed the military in a school.
The Ukrainians making that choice aren't your problem. The Russian military invading another sovereign nation isn't your problem. Your problem is apparently just the journalists reporting the facts of what is actually happening?
Bravo.

Where do you think we kept our troops during the battles back in the nineties? You think they all hide away in massive concrete bunkers, or are they just sitting under a tent? This isn't World War I where two armies clash on a distant front while everyone else lives life normally in the background. Like I said, they're reporting a "selective truth." If the Russian military hadn't invaded Ukraine, the American military wouldn't be stationed in schools and daycares—they'd be in barracks. They should just head over to Russia and tell Putin to pull his troops out; then all these problems would vanish.

Nathan Thomas12 said:I'm talking about the headline itself—you can't honestly tell me the title isn't selective.
It's like if some creep shows up at the beach and starts terrorizing your kids, but the news runs a headline saying 'Matthew Young35 endangered his children by waving a knife on the beach.' Something like that. Get the context?

No, the truth would be that he endangered them by bringing them right to the creep in the first place. That’s how you'd get the "AI version" of the truth.

Matthew Young35 said:Let me be clear: Amnesty International didn't draft or sign the Geneva Convention.
Their role is simply to document what’s actually happening on the ground.
If their report is fraudulent, then by all means, attack them. But if the findings are accurate? Then the criticism is misplaced.
It really is that simple.

Even so, nothing changes the core reality: Russia is the aggressor here. They are committing crimes, and there is no excuse for their actions, regardless of whatever one might think about that report.

That is where you are missing the point. Now the Russians have a written alibi to justify everything they do, just like they always have.

Christian Torres3 said:So, you're basically saying most of this info comes from Russian filtration camps—which are forced statements, period—and you still think those accounts are credible?

Yeah, well, those Geneva Conventions aren't exactly being followed over there. They seem to only care about them when it suits their own interests or Putin's agenda.

It’s not even directly about the war itself, just this one woman in Russia standing up against the whole special operation... it feels like the country is just tearing itself apart from the inside.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1089...0038787485593/

Only Roy is maintaining a level head in this debate.
And the other side is just pure rage.

Amnesty International pulled the plug, didn't they? Honestly, this whole cancel culture phenomenon is just going to spiral until it eventually eats itself alive—it’s practically inevitable at this point. It’s painfully obvious that this isn't a sustainable long-term strategy. lol.

Gerald Torres84 said:That is where you are missing the point. Now the Russians have a written alibi to justify everything they do, just like they always have.

They don't have them.

....

Matthew Young35 said:So, are you suggesting it isn't true that Ukrainians station their military in civilian buildings, and that this Amnesty International report is fake?
Fine, that’s possible. But I have my doubts.

You can station troops in civilian areas without putting regular people in the line of fire.

Think about a school, for instance—do kids attending classes near the front lines have to weave through tanks and howitzers that are actively shelling the enemy? It doesn't work like that.

rowdypilot53 said:The US simply incited a coup in Ukraine. Does anyone actually believe this level of American involvement is driven by pure altruism or a love for the Ukrainian people?

Furthermore, the idea that all of Ukraine wants the West is questionable. Looking at the 2020 local elections, pro-Russian candidates won in the east and south. It seems to be quite a divided nation. Perhaps Kate Cook27 could clarify that, since she might know more about the situation on the ground...

And before the moderators come after me, none of this justifies aggression or war. Geopolitical maneuvering is one thing, but war is quite another...

Nonsense.

If the Ukrainians have been using a specific location—say, a training facility for their soldiers—then that site is essentially a dead zone now. It’s effectively out of commission. My only real concern is if they start targeting the school itself; it wouldn't take much for a stray hit to take out a nearby civilian building instead. Plus, you've got those barracks right in the middle of the city. If those get hit, we're looking at inevitable civilian casualties too.

It’s almost like Russia isn't even aiming at anything specific anymore. They’re just dumping massive amounts of everything onto the battlefield...

If someone tries to argue that the military is targeting schools, but conveniently leaves out the fact that there are kids inside those buildings, then they almost certainly aren't talking about actual combat zones. You have to ask yourself why that detail was highlighted in the first place; the answer is pretty obvious—it's a classic way to lead you toward a false conclusion without actually having to tell a direct lie.

The civilians were likely hunkered down in places like Azovstal, probably mostly families of the fighters. But this idea that children are sitting in classrooms while Ukrainian forces are raining fire on Russian positions from the schoolyard? That’s just absurd. I mean, honestly, who in their right mind would send their kids to a school like that?

hiddeneagle98 said:It’s almost like Russia isn't even aiming at anything specific anymore. They’re just dumping massive amounts of everything onto the battlefield...

And even when they actually bother using precision-guided munitions, they still end up hitting buildings that have absolutely nothing to do with military targets.
Take this, for example:
https://www.foxnews.com/world/article/example-link-for-context

"Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has once again urged European Union nations to ban visas for Russian citizens, arguing that the bloc shouldn't turn into a 'supermarket' where anyone with enough cash can just walk right in."

Good luck getting that through. It’s going to be an uphill battle.

The dust hasn't even settled in Berlin since Americans started scooping up everything useful they could find for the German military and civilian sectors.
They managed to pull together a pretty effective crew, though.

And let's be honest—the world hasn't actually changed much in the blink of an eye.

"Moscow has started laying out concrete plans to hold referendums in several cities within the occupied territories of eastern Ukraine... "

I honestly want to know how they actually intend to pull this off.
The whole thing feels like a total farce—nothing more than a pathetic little Hamlet.